The motive for Murder in Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado” Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado” is an interesting story that revolves around the confession of a man, Montresor, to an unknown person. Montresor confesses how he murdered Fortunato. Like most of his works, Poe has used the first person narrative to address the readers directly. He has also addressed the theme of death. This notable subject is evident in most of his works such as “The Tale-A-Tell” and “The Black Cat.” While Montresor has revealed to the readers how he murdered Fortunato, the motive behind the murder has remained a mystery.
Bailiff: “All rise. Department one of the superior court is now in session. Please be seated.” Judge: “Good morning ladies and gentlemen, calling the case of King Duncan’s murder versus Macbeth. Are both sides ready?” Prosecuting Attorney: “Ready for the people, your honour.” Defence: “Ready for the defence, your honour.” Clerk: “Will the jury please stand and raise your right hand? Do each of you swear that you will fairly try the case before this court, and that you will return a true verdict according to the evidence and the instructions of the court, so help you, God?
A further example can be, when the officers had come in he had become anxious, nervous and all these mad thoughts filled his head. He had thought they were on to him and were there ready to arrest him. More specifically, the way he killed the old man was by quickly putting a heavy mattress over him to suffocate him. Much less, the definition of a madman is a person is mentally ill and refers to a person who does something really fast, intensely or in a very violent way. Also, he had so much pride in killing the man, he felt no guilt whatsoever.
His justification for the crime shows clear instability“I loved the old man. He had never wronged me… For his gold I had no desire. I think it was his eye!”(Poe,1843) This shows that he is mentally ill because he had no real reason or prior experiences with the man to explain why he murdered him except for that he had an ‘evil eye’. Additionally, his mental illness caused him to hear voices and sounds for example “I heard things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell.”(Poe,1843) With this in mind, it is necessary for him to be placed in care with proper medical supervision.
Before reading the short story “The Cask of Amontillado,” the class was asked to come up with a character analysis while choosing to focus on the character Montresor, who is the protagonist of the wicked tale. The narrator of the short story is Montresor, who tells the readers how he was able to get away with murdering Fortunato, who was a former friend of his. Many times throughout the short story Montresor expresses himself and allows the readers to know his thoughts while he relives what had happened on the day he murdered Fortunato. By knowing the narrator’s thoughts, readers can easily make a character analysis by using characters words, actions, and thoughts. After conducting a character analysis on the character Montresor in the short
Capote, with the intention of breaking the stereotype that murderers have no moral compass, describes the two murderers, Perry and Dick, differently. Capote includes that Wendle, one of the first people at the Clutter house after the murder, said that Perry and Dick would “cut out your heart and never bat an eye” (254). Capote illustrates that Wendle’s claim is not credible since Wendle drew his conclusion against Perry and Dick solely based on one source of evidence--the crime scene. Moreover, Capote utilizes Wendle’s opinion as a vehicle to establish that many, because Perry and Dick committed murder, immediately assumed that Perry and Dick do not value life, a typical stereotype of murderers. In defense of his virtue, Perry recalls “as we’re
CHAPTER IV DEFENSE MECHANISM IN “HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER SEASON 1” 4.1. Intrinsic Aspect 4.1.1. Theme How to Get Away with Murder is an American televison series that portrayed an unpleasant experience of Annalise Keating, Keating’s five, Bonnie and Frank. The theme of this tv series can be seen in the title which is How to Get Away with Murder. HGAM mostly tells us about how people that I have mentioned before have to face the reality and have to escape from murder that connects with them.
Yes it was this!... whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold;… I made up my mind to take the life of the old man.”(78) “…for it was not the old man who vexed me, but his Evil Eye.” (80) The suspect made it very clear what his intentions were, and why. He isn’t a lunatic on a killing spree, but someone who despises something and wants it gone. The anonymous murderer was aware of his actions, patient, and proud. “You should have seen how wisely I proceeded – with what caution – with what foresight – with what dissimulation I went to work!…the whole week before I killed him.
The jury must reach its verdict by considering only the evidence introduced in court and the directions of the judge.” Functions and duties of a juror. The movie twelve angry men set the scene of a typical murder trial of a young man who supposedly murdered his father. Jurors are selected from various backgrounds, cultures and professions. Twelve angry men showed the diversity of people ranging from bankers, poker player, parent and those raised in the not so sophisticated lifestyle of the ghettos. Those men were bestowed the opportunity to deliberate on the fate of this eighteen-year-old man.
All things considered, if the verdict came back guilty the nineteen-year-old man would be sentenced to death by the electric chair. Without delay, the jurors came to their decision and eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty, but to be able to prosecute the nineteen-year-old man, the jurors needed to be concordant with each other. Nevertheless, the
Foster alleged that the prosecution violated constitutional provisions of due process through racial discrimination similar to the Batson v. Kentucky case (Bright, 2015, p. 2). The trial court concluded that this case presented a prima facie, or “at first look,” use of racial discrimination. Focus then shifted to the prosecution’s ability to justify the four strikes as prescribed in the three-step process. The prosecutor returned with forty reasons for the strikes and the trial court overruled the Batson objection. Subsequently, Foster was tried before an all-white jury, convicted of murder, and sentenced to death (Bright, 2015, p. 3).
Owen could possibly be, he speaks like he is in a courtroom, having each of these characters go up for trial. The fact that all of these people are guilty of murder, and the Justice has the tenancy to kill people in the courtroom directly points to the Justice being the one who has this all planned out. He is the only one who could possibly know about these murderers that weren’t convicted, and wants to bring them to justice. Justice Wargrave is the only character with a set motive, which is killing off the ones who are guilty but never convicted. Another piece of evidence that could possibly show that Justice Wargrave is the murderer is the fact that he is left alone more often then other characters.
Troy Gregg was convicted of robbery and mass murder, and jurors sentenced to him to death. He fought this sentencing, just like in the Furman case the defense attorney said that they had violated his eighth and fourteenth amendment. The Supreme court in a seven to two decision found that there was no violate unlike in the Furman case. They argued that “when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful judicious use of the death penalty maybe be appropriate if used carefully” (Oyez 2017 Gregg v. Georgia). Georgia still to this day uses the death penalty and as of January 2017 fifty-seven men are waiting to be
Imagine just at the age of 18 you are convicted for a murder you never committed and were locked away for the rest of your life. That 's what happened to Adnan Syed, I believe that Adnan was unjustly convicted of the murder of his ex-girlfriend in 1999 because of bad evidence, Jay 's story was mostly a lie, and that he had a bad lawyer. One reason why I think Adnan is Innocent is how bad the evidence is.When Mr. S first found Haes body there were a bunch of evidence, but the items that stuck out to me were the empty bottles and the rope, but the bottles and rope were never tested so we didn 't know if Adnan was drinking that night or if the real killer used the rope (Koenig, “Leaking Park”). Another part of evidence that never made sense was the phone booth at best buy (Koenig,”To be suspected”). This phone was used to call Jay to pick Adnan up right before they buried Hae 's body, but a number of people said and the blueprints showed that there wasn 't even a phone booth there so he couldn 't of made the call.
After an 18-hour stand off siege with 1 hostage and 2 corpse inside the ‘Seascape’, Martin Bryant set alight to the bed and breakfast. The hostage died before Martin escaped with burns to his body. He was arrested by police and initially denied involvement in the massacre. During police interviews, Martin was either lying or was mentally incapable of retelling the events that day. However, on the 19th of November 1996, he pleaded guilty for a court hearing and was found guilty of all charges.